November 09, 2008

Bingo - Nick Herbert has hit the nail on the head

Nick Herbert, writing in the Sunday Telegraph today has hit the nail on the head. For too long too many Conservatives have failed to make the connection between why we oppose Britain's Human Rights Act, and our commitment to international human rights as exhibited by the work of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and the superb record of William Hague, David Lidington and Andrew Mitchell, along with other frontbench spokesmen, and indeed of David Cameron, in speaking out against the very worst violations of human rights in countries like Burma, Sudan, North Korea and Zimbabwe. Too often, as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, I am asked by Conservatives why we have a human rights commission when we are critical of the Human Rights Act, and I get asked by leftie human rights people how we can reconcile our opposition to the Human Rights Act with our agenda-setting work on foreign policy and human rights. Now, at least, Nick Herbert has reconciled the two. He is the first frontbench spokesman that I have heard say this, and it is a message which I have long been trying to spread and which I hope will become the mantra of the Party:

Real human rights are precious, and breaching them should be a serious violation not a trivial complaint. After the Second World War, when Holocaust survivors were staggering out of Belsen, human rights meant something different to the architects of the European Convention from which the Human Rights Act derives. The language describing serious rights abuses in the world today - in China, Georgia or Zimbabwe - is devalued when a British prisoner claims infringement because of a blocked lavatory in his cell.

I have often argued that the nonsense that
occurs in the name of 'human rights' in this country is an insult to
the brave people I know personally in places like Burma, Pakistan, East
Timor, the Maldives, China and Sri Lanka - and many other countries
besides. Nick Herbert is absolutely right: the application of 'human
rights' in this country risks devaluing the term - and that troubles me
greatly.

Nick Herbert goes on to say:

We
need a new approach which balances rights with responsibilities in a
framework which will command public support. So instead of adding to
the Human Rights Act, we will replace it with a new British Bill of
Rights which puts rights in context, makes clear Parliament's
intention, and constrains the influence of Strasbourg case law. This
solution must protect liberties in this country, respect legal
inheritance, and help restore the place of Parliament.

Conservatives should have no fear of Labour's
absurd claim that to oppose their human rights laws is to oppose the
very notion of human rights. This logical non-sequitur comes from a
Government which has eroded jury trial and attempted to extend the
period of detention without charge to 90 days. Its Human Rights Act has
not succeeded in defending our centuries-old liberties. It was
Parliament that halted the further extension of pre-charge detention,
not the Act.

Absolutely
we must be consistent with our values of freedom and human dignity.
That is why Guantanamo and rendition and 90 days were so unhelpful to
the wider cause of genuine human rights, and ultimately have proven so
unacceptable. Let us get back to basic human rights, and cut out the
nonsense that has occurred under this government which is an insult to
the courageous prisoners of conscience, dissidents, refugees,
resistance groups, displaced people, raped women, slaves and torture
victims who would be grateful for even one per cent of the rights those
who plead 'human rights' in this country have.

Comments

Bingo - Nick Herbert has hit the nail on the head

Nick Herbert, writing in the Sunday Telegraph today has hit the nail on the head. For too long too many Conservatives have failed to make the connection between why we oppose Britain's Human Rights Act, and our commitment to international human rights as exhibited by the work of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and the superb record of William Hague, David Lidington and Andrew Mitchell, along with other frontbench spokesmen, and indeed of David Cameron, in speaking out against the very worst violations of human rights in countries like Burma, Sudan, North Korea and Zimbabwe. Too often, as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, I am asked by Conservatives why we have a human rights commission when we are critical of the Human Rights Act, and I get asked by leftie human rights people how we can reconcile our opposition to the Human Rights Act with our agenda-setting work on foreign policy and human rights. Now, at least, Nick Herbert has reconciled the two. He is the first frontbench spokesman that I have heard say this, and it is a message which I have long been trying to spread and which I hope will become the mantra of the Party:

Real human rights are precious, and breaching them should be a serious violation not a trivial complaint. After the Second World War, when Holocaust survivors were staggering out of Belsen, human rights meant something different to the architects of the European Convention from which the Human Rights Act derives. The language describing serious rights abuses in the world today - in China, Georgia or Zimbabwe - is devalued when a British prisoner claims infringement because of a blocked lavatory in his cell.